非家族高管更加“患不均”？——家族企业CEO身份对高管薪酬差距的影响研究

文章通过衡量家族企业中CEO与非家族高管之间的薪酬差距,试图探讨非家族高管的激励问题。依据社会比较理论和锦标赛理论的不同解释逻辑,并基于家族高管与非家族高管的不同特点,文章首先考察影响高管薪酬差距的前因变量,提出非家族CEO与薪酬差距之间关系的竞争性假设,并探讨薪酬差距对企业绩效的影响作用。利用2009〖KG-*4〗-〖KG-*6〗2016年中国家族上市公司数据,研究发现,当非家族成员担任CEO时,CEO与非家族高管之间的薪酬差距减小;另外,薪酬差距与企业绩效呈负相关关系,说明非家族高管中“不均”的薪酬安排会影响企业绩效。综合来看,相比锦标赛理论,社会比较理论对解释家族企业CEO身份对其与非家族高管之间薪酬差距的影响更具预测力与解释力。     

Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms

We apply a key construct from the entrepreneurship field, entrepreneurial orientation (EO), in the context of long-lived family firms. Our qualitative in-depth case studies show that a permanently high level of the five EO dimensions is not a necessary condition for long-term success, as traditional entrepreneurship and EO literature implicitly suggest. Rather, we claim that the level of EO is dynamically adapted over time and that the original EO scales (autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness) do not sufficiently capture the full extent of entrepreneurial behaviors in long-lived family firms. Based on these considerations we suggest extending the existing EO scales to provide a more fine-grained depiction of firm-level corporate entrepreneurship in long-lived family firms.     

Family Firms’ Corporate Social Performance: A Calculated Quest for Socioemotional Wealth

This study investigates the engagement of family firms in corporate social responsibility. We first compare their corporate social performance (CSP) to non-family firms. Then, following recent evidence on the heterogeneity of family firms, we examine two factors that may influence CSP within family firms: the level of family control and the governance orientation of the country in which they operate. This research is based on a theoretical framework which considers both agency and socioemotional wealth (SEW) influences on family firms CSR engagements. Overall, we find that family firms exhibit lower CSP than non-family firms. But when focusing on family firms, our analyses show a curvilinear relationship between family control and CSP. At lower levels of control, family owners invest more in social initiatives to protect their SEW. Beyond a threshold level of control that we estimate at 36 % in our sample, economic considerations prevail over SEW and social performance starts decreasing. We also find that family firms operating in stakeholder-oriented countries are more attentive to social concerns than those operating in more shareholder-oriented countries.     

Path dependence and resource availability: Process of innovation activities in Chinese family and non-family firms

Employing a process-based perspective and using a generalized method of moments (GMM) procedure, this paper examines the difference in innovation activities between family firms and non-family firms in China. We find that the level of research and development (R&D) by family firms is dependent on prior R&D spending and more so relative to non-family firms. Next, we find that R&D investment by family firms is more likely to be motivated by the availability of both internal and external cash flows relative to non-family firms. Further analysis suggests that these findings are unlikely to be driven by firm maturity.     

Firm ownership and productivity: a study of family and non-family SMEs

Motivated by a lack of consensus in the current literature, the objective of this paper is to reveal whether family firms are more or less productive than non-family firms. As a first step, this paper links family business research to the theoretical notion that family involvement has an effect on the factors of production from a productivity standpoint. Second, by using a Cobb–Douglas framework, we provide empirical evidence that family labour and capital indeed yield diverse output contributions compared with their non-family counterparts. In particular, family labour output contributions are significantly higher, and family capital output contributions significantly lower. Interestingly, differences in total factor productivity between family and non-family firms disappear when we allow for heterogeneous output contributions of family production inputs. These findings imply that the assumption of homogeneous labour and capital between family and non-family firms is inappropriate when estimating the production function.     

Impact of TMT structural power asymmetry on family firm internationalization

We examine the impact of the top management team’s (TMT) structural power asymmetry on a family firm’s degree of internationalization. Structural power is the administrative power drawn from formal positions and is different from ownership power. We argue that family identity creates a faultline between the family and non-family managers in the family firm’s TMT. This faultline gets strengthened when the family managers skew ‘structural power’ toward themselves (termed as ‘family structural power concentration’), leading to poor team integration and cooperation among family and non-family managers. Resultantly, family firms are unable to leverage the knowledge, expertise, and network of the non-family managers in the firm’s TMT for the firm’s internationalization attempts. We hypothesize a negative relationship between ‘family structural power concentration’ and the ‘firm’s degree of internationalization’. Further, we argue that this relationship is moderated by environmental dynamism and competitive intensity. Our findings have implications for research and practice.     

The internationalisation of family firms: case histories of two Chinese overseas family firms

Internationalisation is an important part of the business history of both non-family and family firms. The discourse regarding both is based on the mainstream microeconomic theories of the firm. This article, through examining the case histories of two successful Chinese overseas family firms, shows that explanations of internationalisation need often to venture beyond the confines of existing theories, especially where contextual factors are influential in shaping decision-making. The experiences of these firms point to the role of the state as a major contextual factor. The case history approach is the most relevant in this and other instances where context matters.     

Family firms and corporate social performance: evidence from Korean firms

This study examines the effects of family firms on the corporate social performance of Korean firms and analyses how their effect varies depending on the presence of family CEOs or chaebols. Based on the agency theory, we find that family firms exhibit lower corporate social performance. In particular, there is no difference in the performance of related stakeholders, such as society, consumers, environment, and employees, compared to non-family firms, but corporate governance registers as low performance. We further find that family firms managed by family CEOs show lower corporate social performance, whereas chaebol firms show higher corporate social performance.     

Non-family chair and corporate performance

Using a sample of Chinese family firms listed from 1999 to 2014, we investigate the relationship between non-family leadership and firm performance. We find that firms with a non-family member as board chair perform significantly worse than firms whose chair belongs to the family. Moreover, we show that the underperformance of nonfamily-chair firms is more pronounced when firms are under weaker outside monitoring and when the controlling families care less about family business longevity. The negative effect of a non-family chair is robust to a variety of endogeneity tests. We also dismiss alternative explanations other than concern for reputation. Overall, our empirical results suggest that the social norms regarding family reputation are important in shaping the controlling shareholders’ expropriation incentives and firm performance.     

Non-family chair and corporate performance

Using a sample of Chinese family firms listed from 1999 to 2014, we investigate the relationship between non-family leadership and firm performance. We find that firms with a non-family member as board chair perform significantly worse than firms whose chair belongs to the family. Moreover, we show that the underperformance of non-family-chair firms is more pronounced when firms are under weaker outside monitoring and when the controlling families care less about family business longevity. The negative effect of a non-family chair is robust to a variety of endogeneity tests. We also dismiss alternative explanations other than concern for reputation. Overall, our empirical results suggest that the social norms regarding family reputation are important in shaping the controlling shareholders’ expropriation incentives and firm performance.     

Do family ties shape the performance consequences of diversification? Evidence from the European Union

This paper examines the moderating effect of family involvement in ownership and control on the relationship between diversification strategies – both product and international diversification – and corporate performance. We argue that this moderating effect is related to the distinctive characteristics of family firms compared to non-family firms. The empirical evidence is provided by a sample of firms from the European Union during the 2005–2009 time period. Our results found that family firms are more profitable than non-family firms when they engage in joint product and international diversification.     

Beating the recession blues: Exploring the link between family ownership,strategic marketing behavior and firm performance during recessions

This study explores whether family firms exhibit unique marketing behavior and whether their unique behavior in turn helps them outperform non-family firms during periods of economic contraction. Findings based on a sample of 275 large publicly listed U.S. firms reveal that family firms outperform non-family firms during recessions. This superior performance is partially driven by family firms' proactive marketing behavior and their relatively strong emphasis on corporate social responsibility (CSR). During recessions, while non-family firms tend to decrease their advertising intensities and rates of new product introduction (NPI), family firms are likely to maintain relatively high levels of advertising intensity and rates of NPI. Unlike non-family firms, family firms are also likely to maintain high levels of corporate social performance (CSP) during recessions. These results underscore the benefits of proactive marketing behavior and a continued emphasis on CSR during economic downturns. The authors also add to the scant family-firm literature, demonstrating the family firm to be an effective organizational form.     

The characteristics of family firms: exploiting information on ownership,kinship, and governance using total population data

Family firms are often considered characteristically different from non-family firms. However, our understanding of family firms suffers from an inability to identify them in total population data; information is rarely available regarding owners, their kinship, and their involvement in firm governance. We present a method for identifying domiciled family firms using register data; this method offers greater accuracy than previous methods. We apply this method to Swedish data concerning firm ownership, governance, and kinship from 2004 to 2010. We find that the family firm is a significant organizational form, contributing over one third of all employment and gross domestic product (GDP). Family firms are common in most industries and range in size. Furthermore, we find that, compared to private non-family firms, family firms have fewer total assets, employment, and sales and carry higher solidity, although family firms are more profitable. These differences diminish with firm size. We conclude that the term “family firm” includes a large variety of firms, and we call for increased attention to their heterogeneity.     

The value of family control during political uncertainty: Evidence from Thailand's constitutional change in 2014

We examine the effect of family control on firm value and corporate decision during Thailand's constitutional change arising from the 2014 coup d'état. We find that Thai family firms perform poorly when compared to non-family firms during the period of political uncertainty. The effect is more pronounced when firms have high expected agency costs from outside investors. Further, we find that family firms delay their investments, hold less cash, pay smaller dividends and have poorer access to debt financing sources relative to non-family firms. The reductions in investment and financing activities may at least partially account for their underperformance. Our evidence is consistent with the view that family control enhances firms' survivorship by establishing political connections in times of political uncertainty at the expense of minority shareholders.     

数字金融的公司治理效应--基于非家族股东治理视角

非家族股东治理能够有效助力家族企业实现可持续发展与现代化转型的目标,因而提升非家族股东治理水平具有重要意义。数字金融作为传统金融发展模式的重要创新,能够实现“金融服务实体经济”的目标,促使非家族股东积极参与家族企业治理。基于此,本文以代理理论与社会情感财富理论为基础,探讨了数字金融对非家族股东治理的影响。实证检验发现,随着数字金融的发展,非家族股东治理水平不断提升。其作用机制在于,数字金融能够通过缓解代理冲突、弱化家族控制与强化传承意愿,提升非家族股东治理水平。拓展性分析发现,对于非创业型、融资约束较强、位于金融监管程度较强地区的家族企业来说,数字金融对非家族股东治理的积极效应更显著;数字金融对异质性非家族股东制衡度存在差异化影响,即相较于外资股东与机构股东制衡度,数字金融能够强化国有股东与民营股东对家族股东的制衡;数字金融能够通过提升非家族股东治理水平促进家族企业可持续发展。本文从数字金融视角探究非家族股东治理的动机,丰富了数字金融与非家族股东治理的相关研究。     

Practicing fairness in the family business workplace

One of the main challenges facing family firms is achieving fairness between family and non-family employees in the workplace. Family and non-family employees have the potential to offer unique and distinct contributions to the firm, which makes the achievement of fairness between them messy and complicated. Hence, two interesting questions are worth exploring: Given the complex nature of the family business human capital, how can family firms achieve fairness between family and non-family employees? Why should family business decision makers and advisors promote fair practices in the family business workplace? We first introduce a fair process model as a possible solution for family businesses to achieve fairness between family and non-family employees. Then, based on several examples and studies, we show that family business owners can benefit significantly from promoting fairness in the workplace both in terms of preserving business reputation and in terms of achieving long-term family business survival and success.     

Family Control,Socioemotional Wealth and Earnings Management in Publicly Traded Firms

We examine the unique nature of agency problems within publicly traded family firms by investigating the earnings management decision of dominant family owners relative to non-family. To do so, we draw upon literature demonstrating that family owners are loss averse with respect to the family’s socioemotional wealth, or the affective endowment derived from firm ownership and control. Our theory and findings suggest that potential reputational consequences of earnings management lead family principals to engage in less of this practice relative to non-family firms, and that founder family firms are less likely than non-founder family firms to use earnings management. Moreover, the family-firm effect varies with the firm size, the degree of CEO entrenchment, and the firm’s stock structure. We provide important insights regarding differences between family and non-family principals in the use of unethical accounting practices, thereby extending agency theory and advancing an underdeveloped research area.     

Revisiting the Effect of Family Involvement on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Behavioral Agency Perspective

This paper sheds light on the incongruent findings concerning the relationship between family involvement and firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). While prior studies have mainly taken the perspective of families’ socioemotional wealth preservation, we approach this relationship from the perspective of behavioral agency theory, highlighting the important role played by CEOs’ family memberships. Specifically, we posit that family firms are more likely to invest in CSR when their CEOs are members of the controlling families. Furthermore, we examine how family firms can employ long-term incentives to encourage non-family CEOs to act in the interests of the controlling families to preserve SEW and thus enhancing family firms’ CSR performance. We tested our hypotheses using hand-collected data of family firms included in the S&P 500 index, in the period of 2003–2010. The empirical findings support our hypotheses that (a) family firms with family members as the CEOs have better CSR performance and (b) family firms tend to provide a high level of long-term incentives to non-family than family CEOs. In addition, long-term incentives strongly motivate CEOs to improve firms’ CSR performance, regardless of their family memberships.     

Exploring nonlinear effects of family involvement in the board on entrepreneurial orientation

Family business research suggests that family involvement in the board (FIB) may have both positive and negative effects on entrepreneurship. To reconcile these conflicting views, this study builds on stewardship theory, agency theory, and the resource-based view and proposes a nonlinear relationship between FIB and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to explore how board task performance moderates this relationship. Using a sample of 208 Belgian private family firms, the findings show an inverted U-shaped relationship between FIB and EO, with EO declining beyond moderate levels of FIB. Furthermore, board monitoring task limits the negative effects of high FIB on EO, whereas the board service task does not have any significant effect. This study offers a more nuanced view of the governance conditions that affect EO in the context of private family firms, an overlooked topic in the family business field.     

Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle

The term “entrepreneurial orientation” has been used to refer to the strategy-making processes and styles of firms that engage in entrepreneurial activities. A popular model of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) suggests that there are five dimensions of EO—autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). This paper reports on two of those dimensions—proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness. Proactiveness refers to how firms relate to market opportunities by seizing initiative in the marketplace; competitive aggressiveness refers to how firms react to competitive trends and demands that already exist in the marketplace. Despite these distinctions, prior research has tended to equate these two concepts and argued that they have a similar effect on firm performance. This paper investigates how these two approaches are related to each other, how they are related to performance, and how their function differs in the environments in which firms exhibit these approaches to strategy making. These distinctions are important because proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness represent distinctly different avenues to entrepreneurial success.A field study was conducted in which 124 executives from 94 firms were surveyed. These were executives from non-affiliated, non-diversified firms who were actively involved in strategic decision making at the top level of the firm. All firms reporting had at least one respondent who was an owner. Analysis of the data was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, factor analysis was used to examine the distinctions between different dimensions of EO. Proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness emerged as two separate factors indicating that these two strategy-making modes were perceived differently by the executives in the study. In the second phase, the relationship of these two dimensions to performance was analyzed in various contexts. Initial tests found that proactiveness was positively related to performance but competitive aggressiveness tended to be poorly associated with performance.Subsequent tests of the EO-performance relationship indicated that the stage of industry life cycle tended to favor one entrepreneurial orientation over another. The performance of firms in the early stages of industry development was stronger when their strategy making was proactively oriented. In contrast, a competitively aggressive frame of mind was helpful to firms in more mature stages of industry development. These findings were supported by other tests of the business environment. In dynamic environments, characterized by rapid change and uncertainty, proactive firms had higher performance relative to competitively aggressive firms. In hostile environments, where competition is intense and resources are constrained, competitively aggressive firms had stronger performance.The findings suggest that these two different approaches to entrepreneurial decision making may have different effects on firm performance. The differences were particularly apparent in the way firms relate to their external environment. Proactiveness—a response to opportunities—is an appropriate mode for firms in dynamic environments or in growth stage industries where conditions are rapidly changing and opportunities for advancement are numerous. But such environments may not favor the kind of combative posturing typical of competitive aggressiveness. Firms in hostile environments, or in mature industries where competition for customers and resources is intense, are more likely to benefit from competitive aggressiveness—a response to threats. A further implication of this research is that the dimensions of an entrepreneurial orientation, often considered to be positively related to performance under all conditions, may not always be associated with successful outcomes. This study indicates that the dimensions of EO often vary independently rather than covary, suggesting that the extent to which an entrepreneurial approach to strategy making is useful will frequently depend on the organizational or environmental conditions under which such decisions are made.